Basically, they can do whatever they want as long as they stick to the charges in the articles.
They can stick to the testimony from the House, as this was supposed to be sufficient for a conviction. They could also look for new evidence of the same allegations if they want.
Now, if they don’t think the alleged acts amount to impeachable offenses, why go through a bunch of new evidence to try to prove something you don’t think is impeachable even if 100% true?
Up to the Senate.
And the Senate alone (Nancy…no)
as am I. Should be fairly apparent by the thread. Whether or not the rukes are right is not an emotional appeal… I’ll leave that to schumer and his tears. It’s a matter of basic American jurisprudence.
The prosecution is NEVER allowed to keep people off the witness list until trial begins. They just are not. There is not a judge in this land who would allow these witnesses to be called forward under these circumstances.
Judge: Why didn’t you include the witness earlier so the defense could prepare?
Prosecutor: We just didn’t have time.
Judge: Then you don’t have witnesses either.
In what instance of a “fair trial” is the prosecution allowed to do anything like that? Fair trial as far as I know refers almost exclusively to the defense having the opportunity to defend itself, not to the prosecution getting a second bite of the apple.
In what instance of a “fair trial” is the prosecution allowed to ask the jury to call potential prosecution witnesses and depose them? How is that even remotely “fair” under our standards of justice? Juries aren’t even allowed to hear prosecution evidence until its been vetted, never mind go and get it themselves because the prosecution failed to do it.
Here’s the rub.
The Constitution gives the house the “sole power of impeachment”. It gives the Senate the “sole power to try impeachments”. Does that mean they have the power to ignore the rights of the accused? Does it mean they have the power to do whatever they want? Or, do they have to exercize that power within the limits and constraints of the rest of the Constitution. I know that in practice we have said they can do what they want… but should it be that way?
Judge: Why didn’t you include the witness earlier so the defense could prepare?
Prosecutor: We did, but the President ordered them not to appear and to not turn over requested documents, hence the obstruction of Congress charge.
Judge: OK, proceed.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
I am not out for Trump’s blood and I have nothing emotionally invested in Trump or his Presidency.
If Trump is convicted and removed from office or if he is acquitted, I will accept either outcome.
I have no doubt that he did stuff that was improper.
The question for me and for which I will have an open mind during the Senate trial is this:
Do those acts rise to the level of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” or do they just constitute “peccadilloes?”
This is the very question that was decided during the Senate trial of United States District Judge Charles Swayne in 1904.
He was, by his own admission, guilty of several of the offenses charged in the impeachment. However, the Senate decided that those offenses amounted to peccadilloes, not high crimes and misdemeanors, and voted to acquit. Swayne continued to serve until his death three years late.
And that basically is the question that remains open in my mind and will be resolved during the Senate trial.
Trump clearly did ****.
Does that **** amount to high crimes and misdemeanors or merely peccadilloes?
I have full faith and confidence that Senate will ■■■■ it up…and allow libs an opening to use against them in Nov.
As I said…they are willing to sack Nancy and the house for the senate. If McConnell is that stupid to fall for it…then they deserve to lose the senate.
Honestly I wish that was the question- whether Trump’s offenses rise to the level of an impeachment. But instead the GOP has been pretending that Trump did nothing wrong and in fact acted properly to root out corruption. I have long thought it would be smarter for the GOP to concede the point that Trump screwed up but that it was a small matter not worthy of an impeachment.
I mean why even bother bringing in Hunter, Biden, Schiff or the WB if the GOP honors that Trump screwed up with his solicitation of foreign help to defeat a political opponent?
I don’t think this is between it being a peccadillo and a high crime. This is whether Trump did anything wrong at all- something most of the GOP has been loathe to concede.
Of course they had an avenue to proceed, they impeached Trump and one of the articles was obstruction of Congress for ordering staff not to testify and to block documents both of which were subpoenaed as part of the impeachment process.
Since the United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives has sole responsibility for impeachment they were not required to seek advice or intervention from the Judicial branch for their actions.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
Nope. The House has sole responsibility for impeachment and need not consult with the Judicial branch in the course of their deliberations.
Proof?
President Trump is now the 3rd impeached President in United States history and the House of Representatives was under no obligation to seek a ruling form the Judicial branch. And there is no appeal that can be made to the Judaical branch possible for their actions.
Even if the Senate votes not to convict (as they did with Clinton), it doesn’t change the fact that the House still impeached Trump.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
Historically, almost all Senate trials have included witnesses… Bill Clinton’s trial did. There has never been a Constitutional issue on this matter.
We have heard non-stop whining from the President about how unfair the process is because he has been unable to defend himself. By allowing key witnesses to testify – Bolton, Mulavney, Pompeo, Pence, even the President himself – Trump has the opportunity to make quick work of this Democratic “coup.” I can’t think of any reason why doing so would not benefit the Trump Presidency and the Republic.
